Mark Hindess wrote:
In message <94d710af0908112202x6eb5498dy9bd1dd84dbdde...@mail.gmail.com>,
Sean Qiu writes:
+1 for both of your proposal, it sounds reasonable and cool.
Thanks, Oli.
I am in favour of removing the option completely and removing the
classlib thread code. Of course, this breaks the IBM VME so perhaps we
can leave it in place - but change the default? - until a new IBM VME is
available?
Yes, I think we should switch the default to hy.no.thr=true for a
transition period. There is no harm in keeping the classlib thread code
present for a while, but I think the eventual goal should be to delete
it from the repo.
One question here, what do you mean remove the code? svn del?
What about we "svn move" it to some other place, such as
https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/harmony/enhanced/legacy
Well, we already have:
https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/harmony/enhanced/classlib/archive
but I think "svn delete" is fine since you can always checkout earlier
revisions if you need to revisit the code.
Agreed.
Regards,
Oliver
Regards,
Mark.
2009/8/11 Oliver Deakin <oliver.dea...@googlemail.com>:
Hi all,
I have added an implementation of the thread library function table for
DRLVM which can be enabled by building with the "-Dhy.no.thr=true" flag
specified on the Ant command line. This means we no longer need to build th
e
classlib thread library in the federated build, and we also no longer need
to copy the DRLVM hythr library into jre/bin (although I havn't changed the
build to not do the copy yet). I have temporarily set the hythr library
version to 0.2 so that the federated build can be run with and without the
hy.no.thr flag set.
This opens a couple of questions for discussion:
1) Shall we set the hy.no.thr option to true as default? I personally think
we should - the classlib hythr library is not used in the federated builds,
so there is no reason to continue building it.
2) Shall we remove the thread library from classlib altogether? If
hy.no.thr=true becomes the default, I can see reasons for and against [1]
removing the source from classlib, but I think the reasons to remove the
code outweigh the reasons to keep it. My vote is to remove that source
module from classlib altogether.
Ideas/comments?
Regards,
Oliver
[1] A few I can think of straight off:
For:
- Unused thread library code in classlib is unlikely to be maintained.
- Some classlib thread code is incorrect (x86_64 linux has some invalid
assembler code I believe).
- Shrinks the source tree footprint.
- All VMs will likely have their own implementation of this functionality
anyway.
Against:
- Raises the bar slightly for VM vendors wishing to use the Harmony class
libraries.
--
Oliver Deakin
Unless stated otherwise above:
IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number 741598.
Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU
